The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-04-30
INDIANA AND ILLINOIS NEWS
A Lafayette Lawyer Asks $4,000 Dam
ages from Prominent Citizens.
Harris Acquitted leanings from Cor
respondence and Exchanges.
INDIANA.

The Grounds on Which Attorney Chamber
lin Demands $4,000 Damages
Special to the Indianapolis Journal
LAFAYETTE April 29.-George B. Chamberlin,
an attorney Of this city, has brought damage
suit for So. 900 against Aquilla Jones, Edward
L. Mckee, Robert S. Mckee, George j. Eacock
and John B. McCutcheon, the latter the sheriff
of the county. Eacock. one of the defendants.
is a brother-inlaw of Chamberlin and was
formerly in partnership with him, but they dis
agreed, and each is at present engaged in the
collecting business.
The complaint of Chamberlin is quite volum-
nous. JONES' Mckee & Co.. of Indianapolis,
brought action against James A Parrott ct al.
in 1884. upon promissory notes executed to
Jones, Mckee & Co. by said Parrot & Co.,
upon which and for the payment of which they
claimed that plaintiff was liable In June, 1885,
Jones, Mckee 4 Co. recovered Judgment against
James PARROT ct al. and also against the
plaintiff for 1872. 10. and caused an execution to
be issued from said judgment to the defendant
McCutcheon as sheriff, which was received by
said officer in 1885, The complaint then
cites that at that time and for several years
prior thereto, plaintiff practicing attorney;
that his business was chiefly as a collecting law
one or more commercial agencies, and from the
said business he derived his livelihood and large
gains and profits, all of which depended, in
great measure, upon the good will of his Office
and upon the confidence reposed in him by the
public, and especially by merchants and other
creditors who had claims to collect; that up to
that time the plaintiff had had the confidence of
merchants and business men generally, in the
matter of collecting and securing their debts
and claim of all kinds and by reason
thereof his business was steadily increasing and
the confidence in him of business people becom-
ing daily strengthened. The complaint sets out
that the property in his office belonged to paint
ifs wife, who had purchased the same: that the
the several commercial agencies or associations.
by which they had been issued and sent to
plaintiff to facilitate the efficient conduct of the
business of said commercial agencies and of
plaintiff; that having received said execution, the
defendant McCuicheon.s as such sheriff,
was ordered by the defendants Aqnilla
Jones, jr.,, Edward L. Mckee, Rob lob
srt 5: Mckee r. and - especially the
torney, to levy said writ upon the said property
of Mary V. Chambern wife of plantiffl, and
to sell the same to satisfy said execution; that
the defendants had full notice that the property
seized did not belong to said plaintiff, but not
withstanding such notice the defendants and
said Ea:ock, intending maliciously and willfully
to injure the plaintiff, directed the sheriff to
forward with said levy and sale, and forbade
SAlQ SnerlU allowing the plautIll uHucr sdlu eA-
ecution, an exemption of any amount or value
Of property: that said sheriff made said
levy upon the entire contents of plaintiffs
Office, took possession of said Office, locked the
same up, and excluded the plaintiff therefrom
for ten days, until the property was replevined
by Mary Chamberlin; that by reason Of such
acts and the publicity given to it, and by publ
cation of it in many of the newspapers of the
State, the plaintiff was brought into disrepute.
and concerning him many slanderous and in
furious reports were put into circulation. which
had the effect to iniure and diminish the plant
ifs business and the profits and gains thereof
from that time to the present, and to so affect
and injure his standing and good name as law
yer for at least ten years to come. all of which
the defendants designed and intended to accom-
plish. de demands 500, 900.